Case Explained: PERSONAL INJURY PLAINTIFFS, ET AL. V. META PLATFORMS, INC., ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-10 Docket: 4:22-md-03047-YGR The ninth-circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Meta’s and TikTok’s interlocutory appeals from district court orders that partly rejected their Section 230 arguments, and it also dismissed the plaintiffs’ conditional cross-appeals. The court’s stated basis was that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, provides a defense to liability, not immunity from suit. Under the collateral-order doctrine, an interlocutory order is immediately appealable only if it conclusively resolves an important issue separate from the merits and would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment. The panel said the orders here failed all three requirements: denial of a Section 230 defense can be reviewed after final judgment; the district court had indicated it might revisit the issue later, so its ruling was not conclusive; and deciding Section 230 requires claim-by-claim examination of the plaintiffs’ theories and factual allegations, so it is not completely separate from the merits. The practical consequence is that the multidistrict litigation continues in the district court, the challenged claims may proceed there for now, and any Section 230 issues must be raised later in an appeal from a final judgment or through another authorized route such as certified interlocutory review. The court also denied Meta’s emergency motion to stay trial as moot. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.